Contrary to popular myth, those on disability support are not welfare malingerers. Most of them are decent people, and the vast majority of those who are able bodied enough to do so would actually like to work and to achieve the sense of purpose that comes with earning a living, interacting with people, and learning and acquiring new skills.
The problems are the availability of appropriate jobs and employer attitudes. We in the Labor Party are not opposed to the concept of welfare to work, but any so labelled policy needs to translate as such. We need to know that it is going to work and, in order for us to do so, the government must match its rhetoric with appropriate and adequate support programs that will reskill and retrain those disabled people seeking to return to the work force. But, more importantly, for any approach to succeed it must recognise the significant and considerable barriers that often inhibit a return to the work force by people with disabilities.
The recent report by the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation noted that barriers to employment included negative stereotyping of people with disabilities, discrimination, inappropriate or inadequate assistance and support, lack of information for employers, poor job design and inflexible working arrangements. More broadly, the report noted that disabled people need adequate assistance with personal care, housing, transport and communications technologies so they can access training and employment opportunities.
These barriers must be acknowledged, and it also needs to be acknowledged that, despite all the huff about people with disabilities going back to work and despite the intention of many to do so, the jobs for many just simply will not be there. I do, however, welcome the government’s move in finally convening an employer group to discuss ways of improving employment prospects for people with a disability. But I also have to say that it is about time, especially given that this has been promised since the 2001 budget.
I welcome this move, because it is imperative that we work with employers to facilitate a shift in attitudes. We need to scrutinise employer attitudes and practices towards people with disabilities and to end the current discriminatory practices. This is a point that is raised time and time again with me by groups in my electorate such as Distinctive Options, which does a great job seeking employment placements for people with disabilities. This group knows too well about the difficulties faced by disabled people in securing long-term employment, and it constantly tells me that it is facing an uphill battle to place people in employment.
Last night in this place I spoke about an employer in my electorate who makes a point of employing those most at risk of discrimination and exclusion from the workplace. He is a great example of a socially responsible employer. Another socially responsible and compassionate employer in my electorate is Brite Industries, who over the last 20 years have led the way in giving disabled people opportunities to gain meaningful employment. They are a caring, dedicated employer who understand the needs of their employees. They are another great example for this government to learn from.
It concerns me that this government does not appreciate the difficulties and barriers faced by the disabled, and that it will not be doing enough to provide support to these people, especially given its own track record in this area. The Howard government has really failed to lead by example in this regard, and it is a shame that, since the government coming to office in 1996, the proportion of people with a disability employed by the Commonwealth has fallen dramatically from 5.6 per cent to 3.8 per cent.
For the sake of those people with disabilities who will be assessed under the new policy when it comes into effect, I ask the government to show that it is, in fact, fair dinkum about helping their transition from welfare to work. I certainly hope, for my constituents’ sakes, that this is not just some cynical, cost saving measure that will leave them financially worse off and without any real prospects of gaining meaningful employment.
